Paper Detail

Do not copy and paste! Rewriting strategies for code retrieval

Andrea Gurioli, Federico Pennino, Maurizio Gabbrielli

huggingface Score 11.0

Published 2026-05-08 · First seen 2026-05-13

General AI

Abstract

Embedding-based code retrieval often suffers when encoders overfit to surface syntax. Prior work mitigates this by using LLMs to rephrase queries and corpora into a normalized style, but leaves two questions open: how much representational shift helps, and when is the per-query LLM call justified? We study a hierarchy of three rewriting strategies: stylistic rephrasing, NL-enriched PseudoCode, and full Natural-Language transcription, under joint query-corpus (QC, online) and corpus-only (C, offline) augmentation, across six CoIR benchmarks, five encoders, and three rewriters spanning independent model families (Qwen, DeepSeek, Mistral). We are the first to evaluate NL-enriched PseudoCode and snippet-level Natural Language as direct retrieval representations, rather than as transient intermediates. Full NL rewriting with QC yields the largest gains (+0.51 absolute NDCG@10 on CT-Contest for MoSE-18), while corpus-only rewriting degrades retrieval in 56 of 90 configurations, about 62%. We introduce two diagnostics, Delta H, token entropy, and Delta s, embedding cosine, and show that Delta H predicts retrieval gain under QC across all three rewriter families: pooled Spearman rho = +0.436, p < 0.001 on DeepSeek+Codestral; rho = +0.593 on Codestral alone; rho = +0.356 on Qwen. This establishes Delta H as a cheap, rewriter-agnostic proxy for deciding when rewriting pays off before running retrieval. Our analysis reframes LLM rewriting as a cost-benefit decision: it is most effective as a remediation layer for lightweight encoders on code-dominant queries, with diminishing returns for strong encoders or NL-heavy queries.

Workflow Status

Review status
pending
Role
unreviewed
Read priority
soon
Vote
Not set.
Saved
no
Collections
Not filed yet.
Next action
Not filled yet.

Reading Brief

No structured notes yet. Add `summary_sections`, `why_relevant`, `claim_impact`, or `next_action` in `papers.jsonl` to enrich this view.

Why It Surfaced

No ranking explanation is available yet.

Tags

No tags.

BibTeX

@misc{gurioli2026do,
  title = {Do not copy and paste! Rewriting strategies for code retrieval},
  author = {Andrea Gurioli and Federico Pennino and Maurizio Gabbrielli},
  year = {2026},
  abstract = {Embedding-based code retrieval often suffers when encoders overfit to surface syntax. Prior work mitigates this by using LLMs to rephrase queries and corpora into a normalized style, but leaves two questions open: how much representational shift helps, and when is the per-query LLM call justified? We study a hierarchy of three rewriting strategies: stylistic rephrasing, NL-enriched PseudoCode, and full Natural-Language transcription, under joint query-corpus (QC, online) and corpus-only (C, offl},
  url = {https://huggingface.co/papers/2605.08299},
  keywords = {embedding-based code retrieval, LLM rewriting, stylistic rephrasing, NL-enriched PseudoCode, natural-language transcription, query-corpus augmentation, corpus-only augmentation, CoIR benchmarks, encoder performance, rewriter families, token entropy, embedding cosine, Delta H, Delta s, retrieval gain, cost-benefit analysis, huggingface daily},
  eprint = {2605.08299},
  archiveprefix = {arXiv},
}

Metadata

{}